W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2009

RE: the owl.owl file

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:33:54 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0017EC354@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Rinke Hoekstra" <hoekstra@few.vu.nl>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk]
>Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 6:27 PM
>To: Bijan Parsia
>Cc: Michael Schneider; W3C OWL Working Group; Sandro Hawke
>Subject: Re: the owl.owl file
>Fine for me too -- just in case my opinion counts :-)

In my opinion, it counts double! ;-)

Ok, I have added the comment to the Wiki version, having taken into account
Rinke's suggested change ("is based on"), and Bijan's "seeAlso" triples (two
of them, since there are two tables). I also changed the URIs pointing to
the "CR" documents to the final "TR" versions, as Sandro has already done
this in his original translation earlier this week.

Here's the change in the Wiki:


Question: Should we keep the three isDefinedBy triples? (Was it me who
created them?) Or maybe change them into seeAlso as well? In the latter
case, the less specific link to the RDF-Based Semantics could be dropped,
since there are now the deep-links to the tables. Any opinions? (I will not
do anything with the isDefinedBy links if no one replies.)


>On 16 Oct 2009, at 15:44, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2009, at 05:15, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> This just came to mind: There has recently been discussion [1] about
>>> owl.owl. If I correctly understand the original poster, he was
>>> wondering why
>>> this ontology isn't represented in the OWL 2 documents.
>> Actually, his initial question was whether it was going to live at a
>> specific URI (specifically, an OWL 2 namespace).
>> His looking in the documents was a second recourse.
>>> You may remember
>>> that owl.owl /was/ represented in OWL 1 as an (non-normative)
>>> appendix in
>>> the OWL Reference [2].
>>> Anyway, the essential content (excluding annotations) of the new
>>> owl.owl
>>> file happens to be represented (or "backed") in our document suite
>>> as well,
>>> although in a very non-obvious way by means of two tables on
>>> "axiomatic
>>> triples" in the RDF-Based Semantics [3a,3b] (btw, that's again a
>>> non-normative appendix). This alignment was what I was working on
>>> and which
>>> took me most of the time when I re-designed owl.owl at that time. But
>>> without having a note on this alignment somewhere it will, at best,
>>> look
>>> like an accidental coincidence, if anyone will notice it at all.
>>> So I wonder whether we should make this connection explicit by
>>> adding text
>>> like the following to the comment in the ontology header of owl.owl:
>>> 	The content of this ontology corresponds to Tables 6.1 and 6.2
>>>     in Section 6.4 of the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics specification
>>> 	at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/.
>>> 	Note that those tables do not include the different annotations
>>> 	(labels, comments and rdfs:isDefinedBy links) used in this file.
>>> Any comments (beyond the above :))?
>> Seems fine to me. You might put a comment triple in owl.owl
>> seeAlsoing these sections.
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.

Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 23:34:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:14 UTC